Tripod speed camera?

[00flyboy00]

Don't be offended - it would be easy for someone to come on here and impersonate an officer (or whatever else they like...), and you have to admit you seem to be singing from a different sheet to Avo and Rybo which is why I'm wondering?

LOL....nothing offends me, used to abuse! I do sing from a different song sheet. I admit that I will use tactics, within the limits of ACPO and regulations, which may seem to be a bit unconventional, but which get results. I think speeding motorists get away with far too much as it is and have no sympathy for those who get caught.
I must say, I am impressed with the amount of those on here who are happy to admit that if they get caught they will take it on the chin and not moan about it....hats off to those.

 

[Cess]

No but literacy would help.


WTD: RS Turbo Interior
Views: 9
Posted By Cess

Aways loads of them on ebay. Do a search for...

Aways loads of them on ebay. Do a search for Recaro.

Indeed Cess...

Well done. Spotter's badge to 00flyboy00

 

[00flyboy00]

Cheers!

 

[00flyboy00]

Cheers! Gonna have to ALWAYS use spell check now! FFS

 

[Cess]

You can get a built in one for Firefox. It's very good. IE at work doesn't have it. That's my excuse.

Anyway...back to speeding...

 

[00flyboy00]

Geezzz....computer geek! Copy and paste for me....lol

 

[Cooper]

There is a spell checker plugin for any posts you make on the site - when you hit 'new reply' check out the spelling button.

Regardless, it doesn't filter out the drivel, so lets keep to the topic please.

Andy

 

[Cess]

Despite what you all seem to think the evidence is there that safety cameras are having a great effect in reducing the numbers of people killed and seriously injured.

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/safetycameras/pg_evaluation_report.htm

Read the figures & make your own mind up.

Rybo that report has more holes than a swiss cheese. The caveats are huge!

While there were some 229 fewer KSI collisions (-41%) at these sites during the 3 year period after the launch of the scheme, not all of this decrease can be solely attributed to the deployment of safety cameras. As already mentioned, there was a downward trend in KSI collisions during this period which would have meant that a decrease of around 20.5% of KSI collisions (116 fewer) would have been expected at these sites regardless of the use of safety cameras.

In addition,another factor that is particularly pertinent to the measurement of the effectiveness of such schemes is the regression to themean effect. This relates to the fact that the frequency of collisions at sites will vary randomly overtime. Therefore when sites are identified for the Safety Camera Scheme based on their recent poor collision history (above average KSI collisions) the chances are that in subsequent years the collisionrate will decrease at these sites, regardless of safety camera enforcement (i.e. they will regress to the mean or the average level of collisions).

 

[00flyboy00]

Did you know there is talk of scrapping sites and mobile cameras will be deployed to ANYWHERE in the Nationals?
There will be some whinging done then.

 

[pablo]

I must admit the use of mobile cameras greatly puzzles me. on the one hand we have:

a list of sites on the psni website
signs showing speed camera symbols

but surely a mobile site can be anywhere?

 

[00flyboy00]

No Pablo.
The sites are marked with signs and are specific routes. OK, the mobile camera can be anywhere along that route, but is limited to that area. Most routes will only have 2 or 3 suitable areas, which will be well known to everyone anyhow.....

The tripod mounted laser can be used anywhere, but you will be stopped and spoken to there and then by the operator, only in exceptional circumstances will you be sent a NIP.

 

[pablo]

Oh ok, Im sure there is a pyschological aspect to placing the signs too but always wondered why publish a list if they can operate anywhere.

 

[Jason]

See i dont know how they could get someone slowed down and stopped in time safely at the location they were at!

 

[rybo]

Cess, the report seems quite explanatory to me.

There are lots of factors influencing collision rates. This is simply pointing out that it is difficult to completely isolate any one factor & definitively quantify its effect.

This report is honest enough to say that there is a downward trend in collision rates alongside the success of the safety camera.

The other section you quoted is saying that no matter what section of road you select, if it has been particularly bad for a year or two, over time it should return to 'normal' collision rates. Again, honest enough to say that ALL the success shouldn't be attributed to the camera.

 

[00flyboy00]

Generally jump out in front of them. If they had high vis jackets on and there was somewhere for the vehicle to pull in off the road it is usually ok. Those things ontop of the tripods are not cameras, just laser speed measuring devices.
If they didn't stop and chat to you then you have nothing to worry about.....until the next time!

 

[Cess]

Rybo,

I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you personally. I'm just questioning the validity of the findings of that report.

Given that it states that "chances are that in subsequent years the collision rate will decrease at these sites, regardless of safety camera enforcement (i.e. they will regress to the mean or the average level of collisions)" you could argue that speed cameras are a waste of time and money.

In terms of pure value for money for the taxpayer, I suspect that ploughing more money into driver training or increasing road maintenance has a greater benefit.

Sometimes, however, its all about the need to be seen to do soemething, rather than the net benefit.

 

[Jason]

yea they had hi-vis and a full layby to use... im sure i'll be grand, not much can be done when ur late for work!!

 

[svensktoppen]

In terms of pure value for money for the taxpayer, I suspect that ploughing more money into driver training or increasing road maintenance has a greater benefit.

Hear hear. This speeding discussion is a bit like having a go at parking attendants for issuing parking tickets. Obviously police have every right to enforce laws.

The real problem is caused by those setting the rules. When doing 85mph on an empty motorway is, in the eyes of the law, the exact same offence as doing 40mph in a busy 30-zone, then clearly the law is wrong. What we need is a revolution

 

[00flyboy00]

Rybo,

I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you personally. I'm just questioning the validity of the findings of that report.

Given that it states that "chances are that in subsequent years the collision rate will decrease at these sites, regardless of safety camera enforcement (i.e. they will regress to the mean or the average level of collisions)" you could argue that speed cameras are a waste of time and money.

In terms of pure value for money for the taxpayer, I suspect that ploughing more money into driver training or increasing road maintenance has a greater benefit.

Sometimes, however, its all about the need to be seen to do soemething, rather than the net benefit.

Have to agree with Cess on this one. They are a waste of time and money. The amount of time getting the thing ready, driving out to the location, setting up, going back doing a down load, checking VRMs, double checking VRMs, sending things off to FPPC, getting further information requests, running here and there and file preperation....waste of time.
I would be much better employed setting off with my bag of tricks for the day and stopping motorists, breath testing them, checking documentation and issuing tickets, conducting arrests and taking people to court. It would show a much more proactive approach to the scourges on our roads! They are there to be seen. I think if they paid for police to regularly patrol and enforce in a more robust manner, than pleasing the number crunchers, we would be doing the decent road users who pay insurance and tax and drive in a mannerly fashion a much better service.....IMO

 

[Antoin]

If drivers and roads and cars are better than ever, then why are so many still being killed or seriously injured every year??

Because there are more cars on the road year after year?
Makes sense that accidents would be directly proportional to the no of cars on the road.....
More cars=more accidents.

 

[santoz]

The test should be alot harder imo with a standardised re-test every 5-10yrs, accident rates would drop straight away!

Oh yeah, i have been caught speeding a few time's around banbridge; got six points of which 3 are nearly up. Once got caught at 92mph, went to court and 'got away' with 3points as the road was empty, other time got caught at 85mph on yet again an empty road, then got caught at 60 twice in that stupid temp 40mph zone where the same officer caught me twice a week apart - first time : £60 fine, second time : let off.

Now I sit at a nice safe 80mph, ON AN EMPTY MOTORWAY, and 60mph around exits and entrances onto the dual carraigeway.

 

[santoz]

braking distance travelling at 30mph - 14metres
60mph in good dry conditions - 73metres
50mph in good dry conditions - 62metres
70mph in good dry conditions - 96metres


[SIZE=-1]Now a Ford mondeo has a 62mph to zero braking distance of just 32 metres including thinking time:

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/cars/ford-mondeo-st-tdci/1043634/

so just how out of date is the theory test.
[/SIZE]

 

[PJS]

The test should be alot harder imo with a standardised re-test every 5-10yrs, accident rates would drop straight away!

And who benefits from losing their job or livelihood if they fail the test?
Are we talking about the original test, where you feed the wheel between your hands or are we talking where you display sufficient control in the manner you've become accustomed to?
If the former, and this is deemed a failure, for someone with no accident history, this is hardly fair - after all they've proven themselves safe thus far.

As a voluntary exercise with insurance benefits, like that of IAM, COAST, etc then I'd be all for it.
I do believe though, that elderly should prove they have the capacity to drive safely and with thought and consideration to those around them - all to often they are oblivious to their surroundings!

I also believe learners should be given M'way preparation and training when they're about to sit their test - I think it's madness they're expected to know how to join much faster flowing traffic, never having done it before.
Also, being forced to travel at the slowest speed of all traffic doesn't help either - 45 versus 55 for artics, and 60/70 for cars, bikes, vans, etc makes for nervous individuals.
Much better they experience how the car handles at 55 or 60 as soon as their instructor feels they're ready to apply for their test.

 

[Sir Sax]

LOL....nothing offends me, used to abuse! I do sing from a different song sheet. I admit that I will use tactics, within the limits of ACPO and regulations, which may seem to be a bit unconventional, but which get results. I think speeding motorists get away with far too much as it is and have no sympathy for those who get caught.
I must say, I am impressed with the amount of those on here who are happy to admit that if they get caught they will take it on the chin and not moan about it....hats off to those.

Must be like christmas all over finding this site.

Been caught speeding myself by enemy radar hiding. Otherwise i'd have seen them and corrected my speed, that simple. no worries, you got me that time, but i think i'm still ahead ratio wyse so happy enough.

Purely the speed limits suck balls to begin with, every single road needs looked at and sorted out with new limits.

about the hiding, whatever means necessary, i'd do the same myself in their shoes.
tho an extreme thought.... your hiding and taking a few holiday snaps, someone flys past too fast for you to reel him in....so you have his details anyway and continue to hide...*CRASH... BANG...DING*!! the same car that sped past has mangled itself around a lamp-post or some innocent pot-heads and killed instantly. It's ok tho, it's not your fault, it was his for speeding BUT IF you were highly visible at the time, you could have saved a life? hell you could have saved a whole bunch of lives!

 

[00flyboy00]

Must be like christmas all over finding this site.

Been caught speeding myself by enemy radar hiding. Otherwise i'd have seen them and corrected my speed, that simple. no worries, you got me that time, but i think i'm still ahead ratio wyse so happy enough.

Purely the speed limits suck balls to begin with, every single road needs looked at and sorted out with new limits.

about the hiding, whatever means necessary, i'd do the same myself in their shoes.
tho an extreme thought.... your hiding and taking a few holiday snaps, someone flys past too fast for you to reel him in....so you have his details anyway and continue to hide...*CRASH... BANG...DING*!! the same car that sped past has mangled itself around a lamp-post or some innocent pot-heads and killed instantly. It's ok tho, it's not your fault, it was his for speeding BUT IF you were highly visible at the time, you could have saved a life? hell you could have saved a whole bunch of lives!

As previously mentioned.....I don't HIDE out of sight of those I am detecting, that would not be easily done as you need a clear line of sight to the vehicle, I do conceal myself, when the conditions permit, from the view of vehicles going the other way, so they do not have the chance of flashing headlights at oncoming vehicles. If I am checking your speed, you can see me.

Also...as previously mentioned....they are not cameras....they are lasers. Where you have the idea of taking photographs from using these devices is beyond me.....but, ok, lets play your story out....someone goes flying past....sees Police....slows down.....goes past...speeds up again.......*CRASH... BANG...DING*!! the same car that crept past has sped up and has mangled itself around a lamp-post or some innocent pot-heads and killed instantly....
BUT...if the idiot was driving in a safe manner, a. I wouldn't have bothered him, he might even have been glad to see Police there and b. He may not have crashed.

Sorry....what was your point again?